@ijackson: "In Cambridge (and perhaps elsewhere for all I know) when there are roadworks it is very common for the workers to put up unjustifiable "cyclists dismount" signs. The usual situation is that this happens when the road has cycle lanes which have to be closed for the roadworks. In this situation the right answer is for cyclists to use the main traffic lane as you would on a road without a cycle lane, and perhaps (depending on the width) for motorists not to overtake cyclists. We've also seen it quite commonly with temporary traffic lights and single lane working, even sometimes if the original road didn't have any cycle facilities, or in cases where the cycle lane could in fact have remained open. These signs are pernicious because if cyclists continue to use the road, as they are entitled to do, motorists are offended at cyclists being "scofflaws", and some motorists react by trying to overtake when there isn't really room, driving in an intimidating manner, etc. That can make an awkward but unavoidable situation very unpleasant or perhaps even dangerous. Talking to the workers informally has been tried but has very limited success, as one might imagine. Of course the legal situation depends on the temporary TRO if there is one. AIUI these TROs don't ban cycling if motor traffic is still permitted - so the problem isn't with the council issuing duff TROs. Indeed the Cambridge Cycling Campaign keep talking to the County Council about this; the council say "please always tell us" and after a complaint it's fixed, sometimes in day or two but sometimes a week or two later. The problem with this is that roadworks tend to last a few days to a week, and as they keep cropping up the incidence of this problem isn't reducing. The real difficulty is that the County Council bureaucracy which is trying to respond to this is very remote from the real problem: the workers who are making the mistakes have little relevant training or knowledge. There is no effective pathway for the latter problem to be fixed. Apart from increasing the political pressure on the council to respond to these incidents quicker and to get them to educate the workers, what more effective remedies would be feasible ? Is putting up unjustified "cyclists dismount" signs against the law ? If it is, can one get an emergency injunction and make the roadworks company (or indeed the Council if it's their own employees) pay one's costs ? That would probably still be rather slow. Is it legally OK for a passerby to disturb such a sign by folding it up and putting it to one side, or laying it down, so that it is no longer visible ? Suppose one were to take such a sign away, leaving behind one's details and promising to return it when the roadworks are done or the sign is needed elsewhere. (On the assumption that this can be done without getting into a confrontation with workers who are physically present.) That wouldn't be theft. Would it be any other kind of crime ? What legal risks would one be exposed to ? Are there any other suggestions ? Finally I need to try to head off responses which attempt to justify the placement of these signs in some hypothetical circumstances - pedestrian zones perhaps. Indeed we recently did have a set of roadworks in a busy shopping street; the carriageway was entirely blocked and the road was closed to motor traffic. Cyclists were quite reasonably asked to dismount and walk past the blockage on the pavements. I want to be completely clear that this is not what my question is about. In the cases I'm discussing we're talking about urban roads where motor traffic remains permitted, and the Highways Authority has agreed (perhaps belatedly) that the signs are wrong. Ian Jackson personal email: <email_address> These opinions are my own. <url> PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657" @cpb: "<quote> The justification for such signs is the design criteria in Chapter 8 of=20 the Traffic Signs Manual. The minimum lane width to allow both cyclists=20 and light motor vehicles to use the road is michael21@example.com. A wider lane=20 is required on a bus route or a route used by LGVs. This is to ensure=20 that cyclists are not endangered by vehicles trying to overtake them=20 through the road works. Cyclists may also be advised to dismount where=20 it is known that the road surface or condition is likely to be hazardous=20 to them during the road works. The Traffic Signs Manual gives the following guidelines: 'Wherever possible, access should be maintained for cyclists in both=20 directions throughout the period of road works, avoiding more hazardous=20 diversions.' 'Where there is cycle provision, such as cycle lanes or tracks, efforts=20 should be made to keep these open or to provide an acceptable=20 alternative during the road works.' However, the safety of cyclists comes first and there will be road works=20 where those guidelines are incompatible with safety. .... An offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, carrying a penalty of up to=20 six months in jail and/or a fine of up to =A35,000. .... Learn to live with the fact that road works, by their very nature, cause=20 disruption and inconvenience to road users. The signs are there for your=20 safety. Colin Bignell" @martinfrompi: "<quote> or where the roadworks necessarily close a contra-flow cycleway (as in Bateman street as at present). Cyclists and motorists can proceed west-bound. East-bound motor traffic has always been forbidden; east-bound cyclists can dismount, walk past the roadworks, and remount. Good question." @andrew_d_may: "<quote> s s e r But, if my reading of the OP is correct, the cases that the question=20 relates to are those where the highway authority admits that the=20 prohibition is wrong." @paulnospam: "Nightjar <email_address> writes: <quote> Although the signs create no legal obligations on anyone. If people are to be prevented from cycling then you need a "no cycling" sign, presumably backed up by an appropriate TRO. That's really the problem - cyclists can perfectly legally ignore the signs. Some motorists incorrectly think that such cyclists are breaking some road traffic law and behave then decide to drive aggressively (which of course is never acceptable simply because you believe another road user has broken some rule)." @cpb: "<quote> .... Cyclist dismount signs are rectangular, which means that they are information signs. They exist to warn cyclists that conditions beyond the sign are not conducive to safe cycling. There is no prohibition for anybody to admit to being wrong. Colin Bignell" @cpb: ".... <quote> The signs in question are information signs. Although there is extensive=20 guidance on how and when they should be used, they require no=20 legislation to be placed. There is no such exemption in the law. Unauthorised interference with=20 road works signs or equipment carries a sentence of up to six months in=20 jail and/or a fine of up to =A35,000. Colin Bignell" @steve: "<quote> No, under the road traffic act 1988 section 22 you commit an offence if you interfere with these signs without authority You also risk being held liable if an incident occurs because of yuor actions Possibly risk being sued for any project overrun, stoppage time permit extentions etc , cost of new equipment hire.This could run into many thousands of pounds A good thumping from a rather large irate roadworker (most of these guys work on a price)" @cpb: "<quote> Although, as there are quite extensive guidelines on when the signs should be used, which essentially come down to them being a last resort, and as they can be used solely because the road works themselves may make cycling hazardous, ignoring them is not likely to be a very intelligent thing to do. Colin Bignell" @ian: "<quote> No, it does not say that. D3.3.2 : "where the traffic is expected to consist only of cars and other light vehicles the lane width may be reduced to 2.75 m (desirable minimum) or 2.5 m (absolute minimum)." It is worth noting that the manual explicitly defines traffic as "to include both motorised and non-motorised users such as ... cyclists". Unless you are going to maintain that cyclists are heavy vehicles, this clause says 2.5m lanes are OK for cars and bicycles. D3.3.3 also says lanes may be reduced to 2.5m. It does say (in D3.3.7) "On all-purpose single and dual carriageway roads, the designer should consider the adequacy of lane width provisions for vehicles to overtake cyclists safely. Department for Transport Traffic Advisory Leaflet 15/99 advises that cyclists need a width of at least 1.25 m to travel safely, thus requiring a minimum lane width of 3.25 m to allow a typical car to safely overtake a cyclist." However, it does NOT say what you imply - that if you can't provide 3.25m lanes then it is appropriate to attempt to exclude cyclists. In fact, the cyclists dismount sign is not mentioned in part 1 (design) of chapter 8. At least, I can't find it and a word search can't find "dismount". Perhaps you can identify the clause where it is described as a means of addressing safety when lanes are narrow at road works? regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @cpb: ".... <quote> The Cyclists Dismount sign is simply an information sign which, as I point out, is there for the safety of cyclists. An information sign has no power to exclude anybody, although it may be inadvisable to ignore the information given. The risk assessment required in Part 2 of Chapter 8, combined with the requirement that consideration must be given to the safety of cyclists, will determine whether such information should be presented to cyclists or not at individual road works. One basis for that decision will be the DfT guidelines on the minimum lane widths at which various vehicles can overtake cyclists with an adequate margin of safety. Colin Bignell" @bc: "news:KAj*<email_address> <quote> Cyclists should dismount and then, what? Walk on the road, or on the pavement? Bartc " @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Wed, 29 May 2013 20:30:03 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> But they are frequently (indeed usually) deployed as a /first/ resort, without any thought or consideration. In most cases, it seems to be far more intelligent than the knuckle draggers sticking them up." @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Wed, 29 May 2013 20:20:09 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> =20 If the highway authority has said they shouldn't be there, is it unauthorised interference?" @phil: "Ian Smith <email_address> considered Wed, 29 May 2013 21:30:10 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> Surely, "No overtaking" would be the preferred option." @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 00:30:02 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> The status of the road (which presumably is a public highway) should make it clear that no vehicular use can be obstructed, and that if there is insufficient space for motor vehicles (permissive users) to pass bicycles safely, then a strict no-overtaking rule should be imposed (if you can't do it safely, don't do it at all - simples!). To that extent, the Traffic Signs Manual is incompatible with the status of the public highway. Not surprising, since it was probably created by petrol heads who'd prefer not to have cyclists on the roads at all, and will find any excuse to exclude them." @ian: "<quote> I take that as your agreement that chapter 8 nowhere proposes that a solution to narrow lanes is to instruct (or direct, or suggest) that cyclists dismount. Your stated justification does not exist. There is no justification (or recommendation or even suggestion) in chapter 8 that 'cyclists dismount' be used at roadworks where there are narrow lanes. The sign is not primarily used for the safety of cyclists. It purports to be so, but it is mainly employed for the convenience of motorists. Indeed, you are advocating its use for the convenience of motorists - if it really were the case that a lane is too narrow for a car to overtake a bicycle, the solution that provides safety for cyclists is to prohibit cars overtaking cyclists, not prohibit cyclists. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @andrew_d_may: "<quote> You are assuming that those guidelines have been followed. The OPs question is about when they have not been and a complaint to the council confirms that." @andrew_d_may: "<quote> But that is exactly the case the the OP is making. The contractor puts up a cyclist dismount sign and a complaint to the council results in the council telling the contractor to take it down." @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 20:10:10 on Wed, 29 May 2013, Nightjar <email_address> remarked: <quote> They may also be warning cyclists that the permissive path in question does not permit cycles. That's the situation for several of the footbridges over the Cam, aiui. And the rectangular signs near were I live are also warning cyclists that just round the corner are circular "No Cycling" signs. Roland Perry" @robertmlaws: "<quote> =20 Yes, they are information signs because they are rectangular. Since they a= re not warning or instructional signs, their purpose must be to inform some= one that "cyclists dismount". The 'someone' cannot be the cyclists since = they already know whether they are mounted or not, so it must for for the i= nformation of other road users. =20 Why can the contractors not put up circular "no cycling" signs? Does that= require a level of approval that is hard to obtain? =20 Robert" @robertmlaws: "<quote> I'm not sure about those footbridges over the Cam. I understood that cycling is not prohibited. There also the famous debate about what the Cambridge footbridge sign "no cycling cyclists dismount" means, given that it is an information sign. One view is that it should be read as "cycling cyclists do not dismount". Which would be true mostly. Robert" @a24061a: "<quote> On the pavement, of course, because inconveniencing pedestrians is better than inconveniencing motorists. :-P" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 10:35:02 on Thu, 30 May 2013, RobertL <email_address> remarked: <quote> As far as I know it isn't permitted either. Reminds me of a sign on the canal towpath in West London (it's the gap under the "No", rather than under the "Motor cycling" which makes all the difference): NO Motor Cycling Offenders will Be Prosecuted Roland Perry" @a24061a: "<quote> You mean by drivers violating Highway Code rules 163 ("give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car") & 167 ("DO NOT overtake ... where the road narrows ... where traffic is queuing at junctions or road works")? A better solution is put cameras up & send those drivers FPNs for careless driving." @ian: "<quote> There are rectangular signs which are mandatory. One way traffic. Various lane designations signs. Red-route sign. These are all information signs only in so far as they give you information about things that are mandatory - and if you're going to try that argument you must also conclude that (eg) circular speed limit signs are only informational - they offer information about what the speed limit is at a location. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @ian: "<quote> [stuff snipped] No, it is not. The traffic signs manual is not incompatible with the status of the highway because it does not say what Nightjar says that it says. The manual is fine. Nightjar's commentary on it may be said to be incompatible with the status of the highway, but the manual is fine. Read it. You will find it explicitly states that cyclists are traffic and must be treated accordingly. It's not the manual that is at fault, it is the statements that have been made about the manual. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @ian: "<quote> Deploying a no overtaking sign requires a traffic order, which requires forethought, planning and effort. Isn't going to happen for 'routine' roadworks on relatively minor roads. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @ijackson: "<quote> At least you (unlike the other posters who have asserted this) have provided a reference to a specific section of an Act. However, <url> 22 Leaving vehicles in dangerous positions. If a person in charge of a vehicle causes or permits the vehicle or a trailer drawn by it to remain at rest on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to involve a danger of injury to other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence. Ian Jackson personal email: <email_address> These opinions are my own. <url> PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657" @cpb: ".... <quote> I only gave that as an example of one case where it might be appropriate. As I said, its use would depend case by case upon the risk assessment. You will find that true of many of the signs michael21@example.com. The manual would be considerably larger than it already is if it covered every possible combination of events and left nothing to the discretion of those responsible for the works. As it is Chapter 8, which was a single volume when it was my regular reading matter, is now two large volumes. I doubt you are sufficiently qualified in risk assessment at road works to be able to make that statement with any authority. Stripped of all the emotive bits, the OP's questions boil down to: Are these signs legal? - Answer: yes What happens if somebody removes or obliterates them? - Answer: that person potentially faces a prison sentence and/or a hefty fine. Everything else is irrelevant to this group. Colin Bignell" @a24061a: "<quote> Here's an example of doing it correctly: <url> (I've never seen one myself, but it's nice to know they exist.)" @cpb: ".... <quote> The Highway Code should, of course, apply equally to all road users, but I have never noticed motor cyclists or cyclists waiting patiently at the point where they join the queue with everybody else. It is also an offence under The Road Traffic Act 1988 to cycle without reasonable consideration for other road users. Holding up a long line of traffic by cycling through road works when it would be perfectly possible to dismount and walk past them without affecting other traffic could be construed as not showing reasonable consideration for other road users. Colin Bignell" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 01:00:02 on=20 Thu, 30 May 2013, Phil W Lee <email_address> remarked: <quote> Depends whether you work for (or have been authorised by) the highway=20 authority or not. Alternatively, it might be possible to argue that the object in question=20 is not actually a road sign, but merely a road-sign-shaped thing. At=20 which point maybe it isn't an offence to interfere with it?? =20 Roland Perry" @andrew_d_may: "<quote> No, and no again. the OPs question was _specifically_ about signs that the council agreed should not have been put up in the first place." @cpb: "<quote> ve o n Yes, unless you are under specific instructions from either the=20 contractor or the highways authority to remove them. Colin Bignell" @clive: "<quote> IIRC while the hills road railway bridge in Cambridge was being rearranged, similar signs were up." @robertmlaws: "<quote> : =20 or =20 Good points. However, as a general principle for roadsigns I still think t= hat circular signs forbid something and rectangular signs give information = (which might be to clarify what you may do). In the case of rectangular = 'one way' signs: are these not informational with the actual 'forbidding' s= ign being the 'no entry' sign at the entrance to the one-way section? Spe= ed limit signs are circular because they do forbid something. We can talk about "gentlemen lift the seat" next and discuss whether it is = instructional or informational. Robert" @cpb: "<quote> f It is actually Section 22A: (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without=20 lawful authority or reasonable cause=97 .... (c)interferes (directly or indirectly) with traffic equipment, in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person=20 that to do so would be dangerous. .... (3)In subsection (1) above =93traffic equipment=94 means=97 .... (b)a traffic sign lawfully placed on or near a road by a person other=20 than a highway authority; .... (4)For the purposes of subsection (3) above anything placed on or near a=20 road shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to have been lawfully=20 placed there. Colin Bignell" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 15:20:09 on Thu, 30 May 2013, RobertL <email_address> remarked: <quote> If you re emerging from a side road, then the only thing forbidding you to turn the wrong way is the rectangular sign. There are also numerous streets which have a "No Entry" at one end (as a traffic claming measure) but are two-way. So you can join them part-way along, or even do a u-turn. Dogs must be carried. Roland Perry" @ian: "<quote> In general, yes. I was merely observing that it isn't a universal rule that rectangular signs are guidance type information. Thus, while (as it happens) 'cyclists dismount' is merely a recommendation, you can't say it must be merely a recommendation or informational *because it is rectangular*. I think that all the informational signs are rectangular, but not all the rectangular signs are merely informational. Circular signs don't forbid - they instruct. Circular with a red border mostly instruct by forbidding and circular predominantly blue give positive instruction (keep right, for example, on the back of road maintenance vehicles). There are exceptions though, which are a bit irrational - the blue 'route to be used by pedal cycles only' is really a forbidding - it actually forbids motor vehicles, not requires that bicycles must use that route. There are others where you can see the justification - the minimum speed limit is blue just to distinguish it from the maximum speed limit, but it is no more positive instruction than is the maximum speed limit, conceptually. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @cpb: "<quote> Irrelevant. They were put up legally and it is an offence to move them without proper authority. Whether or not the highway authority later decide that their use was inappropriate for those particular roadworks does not change either of those facts. Colin Bignell" @cpb: "<quote> Not according to the DfT publication, Know Your Traffic Signs. See the signing system on page 9 in the 2013 edition, which can be downloaded here: <url> Colin Bignell" @mike: "<quote> Very relevant. The only law cited (by you!) that makes it a crime says: } (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally and without } lawful authority or reasonable cause=E2=80=94 }=20 } .... }=20 } (c)interferes (directly or indirectly) with traffic equipment, }=20 } in such circumstances that it would be obvious to a reasonable person } that to do so would be dangerous. Please explain how removing a sign that should not have been put up is dangerous. The risk that the Phantom Sign Remover of Cambridge faces, of course, is that (s)he may remove a sign that /should/ have been there. That, of course, might be a crime under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988, but only if the danger is sufficently obvious. Or reasonable cause, and only if it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous. But does rather suggest that the answer to the question "would it be dangerous to remove this sign?" is a resonding "no". =20 Mike Bristow <email_address>" @cpb: "<quote> t Please explain how any reasonable person would know it was *not*=20 dangerous. Bear in mind that the assumption in law is: (4)For the purposes of subsection (3) above anything placed on or near a=20 road shall unless the contrary is proved be deemed to have been lawfully=20 placed there. So, if you had a copy of a decision that the use of the sign was not=20 appropriate to that particular set of roadworks, then it would not be an=20 offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to move the sign, although it=20 could still constitute criminal damage to do so. However, in all=20 probability, the sign will, by that time, have been removed by a=20 properly authorised person. .... However, it will be the Court who decides what a reasonable person might=20 think, not you, and, historically, Courts have a habit of deciding that=20 any reasonable person should realise that any interference with road=20 works signs or equipment is dangerous. Only after any such a decision has been made by the highways authority=20 and, as I stated above, it could still constitute criminal damage,=20 whether any actual damage occurs to the sign or not. Colin Bignell" @ian: "<quote> Again you make a claim that some official document contains a things that it does not. Where does Know your traffic signs say that no rectangular sign is mandatory? It does not. What it says is that rectangular signs inform. Some rectangular signs inform you of things with which it is mandatory that you comply. For example, do you believe that figure 652 in traffic signs manual (chapter three, page 25) is merely a recommendation? It is not, it is a rectangular sign with which compliance is mandatory. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @a24061a: "<quote> Oh fooey. I disagree for 3 reasons. Inconveniencing pedestrians should not be preferred to inconveniencing motorists. Cyclists have the right to use the lane anyway (except on motorways, &c.) & it's no worse for motorists to be "stuck" (an incorrect perception, of course) behind them at road works than while waiting for a safe & legal opportunity to overtake anywhere else. It's also unreasonable to expect to tear through road works anyway." @mike: "<quote> I doubt that. I have seen the "man unfurling umbrella" sign left in place after roadworks have ended several weeks before. I've seen temporay "caution: flood" signs left in place months - long enough for the floods to pass, and for a hosepipe ban to be introduced. I've seen perminent "warning: new road layout ahead" signs in place for a _decade_. While I've never done anything more than mutter under my breath, I'm certain that no court would consider it "obvious to a reasonable person" that removing the sign would be dangerous. I'd actually argue that removing them is justifiable on the grounds of saftey: too many "bogus signs" means that people will ignore them even when they're not bogus. I'd missed the suggestion of criminal damage. *ponder* Mike Bristow <email_address>" @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 19:30:02 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> t at n =20 =20 Exactly the situation in question then - the Highway Authority have stated that the use was incorrect and inappropriate. Thank you - at last. Removal and damage are not the same michael21@example.com. Not in my (or most others who have tried to get the damned things removed) experience. =20 Don't you think the Highway Authority have any say in the matter at all? I was under the distinct impression that their decision was authoritative in such matters _unless_ someone challenges it in court and succeeds. s As in the case in question. Feel free to explain how you can have criminal non-damage." @phil: "Adam Funk <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 13:05:01 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> They used them on Hills Road Railway bridge during the major works there." @phil: "Ian Smith <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 12:25:08 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> Then neither should any apparent instruction for road users to push their vehicles." @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 13:10:02 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> There are no minimum speed limits. Simply using the road for it's intended purpose is not "not showing reasonable consideration for other road users". [Cadden vs crown, Jan 2007] Intimidating vulnerable road users by tailgating, dangerous overtaking, revving engines, and other bullying behaviour most certainly IS though, and far too little is done to discourage it." @phil: "David McNeish <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 11:00:03 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> Now there's a plan, if you can find a few cyclists who have the time to all stand around together while the navvies try to find out what the Highway Authority say about the matter." @cpb: "<quote> hat It used to be =C2=A35, but that was when =C2=A37 would buy you a full far= e train=20 ticket between London and Glasgow. Colin Bignell" @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 16:00:04 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> if n r So equally clearly not in a case where the Highway Authority has stated that the sign is inappropriate and should not have been there. =94 One has to question if it was lawfully placed, in the circumstances stated. =20 =20 If a complaint about it to the Highway Autority has been upheld, the contrary would appear to have been proved." @cpb: "<quote> Which is not the same as your claim that some rectangular signs are mandatory. Colin Bignell" @cpb: "<quote> So you don't think that the Highway Code should apply equally to all road users? How does walking along a pavement, wheeling a bicycle, inconvenience pedestrians any more than, say, a pram? Except that, at road works there is less likely to be an opportunity to overtake safely and legally. It is also unreasonable to expect an entire line of traffic, possibly with traffic control that gives a limited time to pass through, to have to crawl through them. Obviously, each case would need to be judged on its merits, but cyclists still have a legal duty to give reasonable consideration for other road users. Colin Bignell" @wensleydale: "<quote> are train=20 I figure that's a bit like the entirely theoretical fine (have you heard = of anyone being charged it?) for pulling the alarm on a train. Neil =20 Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to repl= y." @wensleydale: "<quote> Normally there's a blue circular version opposite the turning, no? Neil =20 Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to repl= y." @ulm: "<quote> This goes back to a case several years ago where an idiot cyclist (of which we have to admit there are many - jus as here are many who are not) decided to cycle through a path for pedestrians created by workmen at some road works, he came of the kirb and sued the company doing the road works. He shouldn't have taken that route, he should have used the road like all vehicle traffic is supposed to but all the same the idiot judge came down on his side taking no account of the risk the cyclist posed to pedestrians ... but as usual they don't count. Naturally the case was appealed and naturally the company won the appeal however going to court costs money and to save having to go through the process again it's now become common practice to put up those signs so that the minority of cyclists who chose to be anti-social and insist on terrorising other road users won't have a leg to stand on or even a wheel to turn if they end up like the idiot who took his case to court. I can see why a cyclist may be offended that he might have to get off his mighty steed and walk a few yards but if it's a choice between that and ensuring the safety of all road users I would imagine that the responsible cyclist wodl do as directed ... or use the main carriageway. Oh and if you move a road sign put up for safety purposes at a roadworks you commit a criminal offence. All the best, Periander" @jmsmith2011: "On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:40:02 +0100, <email_address> (Ian <quote> But surely the "right answer" is for the cyclist to get off and walk as requested, rather than insist on "taking the lane" and blocking the road to all other traffic? Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "<quote> That would be the answer : they already have the authority to control the traffic, so I don't see why not. Judith I am going to ride my bike today will wearing a helmet protect me or increase my chance of head injury." @me: "On Wed, 29 May 2013 20:30:03 +0100, Nightjar <email_address> wrote: <snip> <quote> You are quite correct And unfortunately there can be a very big difference between what is common sense and what "I have the right to do" I have the right to cycle down the LHS of a stationary vehicle. Judith Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "On Thu, 30 May 2013 00:30:02 +0100, Nightjar <email_address> wrote: <quote> I wonder if a cyclist ignored the sign and then was caught by an overtaking vehicle, the cyclist's actions by ignoring the sign could be seen to have contributed to the accident. (Reduced "compo" as we cyclists say ) Judith Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "On Thu, 30 May 2013 12:55:01 +0100, Nightjar <email_address> wrote: <snip> <quote> Not quite: there is still the legal question of contributing to the accident (ie being at fault) if the cyclist ignores the sign and is then in contact with an overtaking vehicle as I have raised elsewhere. Judith Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "On Thu, 30 May 2013 20:00:05 +0100, Clive George <email_address> wrote: <quote> The real question may be "Does this sort of thing come up anywhere other than Cambridge a lot" :-) Judith Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @ian: "<quote> Yes, it is. The one-way sign is rectangular. It is mandatory. ALL the mandatory signs are merely informing you of things with which it is mandatory to comply. The rectangular one-way sign is exactly like the speed limit, or no vehicles, or any other mandatory sign in that respect. |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @ian: "<quote> The point is, as I understand it, that the sign is positioned such that it appears that the cyclist may not use the main carriageway. Some (Nightjar, for example) think that it *does* mean that cyclists may not use the carriageway. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @cpb: "<quote> fare train d of I assure you, that one is far from theoretical, much to the annoyance of=20 a then friend of mine. Colin Bignell" @cpb: "<quote> t if or ion ger As I point out elsewhere in this thread, only after such a decision has=20 been made, if it is in fact ever made, by which time a properly=20 authorised person will most probably have removed the sign. =80=94 There is no doubt that it was lawfully placed, even if its use at those=20 particular works is later considered to have been inappropriate. a ly Only after that event, by which time it probably won't be there. Until=20 then, it remains an offence to interfere with it. Colin Bignell" @roland: "In message <<email_address> .net>, at 22:55:16 on Thu, 30 May 2013, Neil Williams <email_address> remarked: <quote> I'm sure I've seen instances where the blue rectangle was used, but the couple I looked at just now were "red circle" no left/right turn signs; but that's because (it occurs to me now) it's one of those streets I mentioned before that are in fact two-way, but various prohibitions exist to make it in effect one-way for motor vehicles (one common reason being so that they can be two-way for cyclists). Roland Perry" @cpb: "<quote> at hat on a ly n However, note the caveat that you would need to have proof of the=20 decision of the highways authority. Removal and the offence of criminal damage may well be. The Courts tend=20 to interpret the term 'damage' quite widely and it is well established=20 that no actual damage need occur for an offence to have been committed. .... ht t That would only be relevant if the person accused could demonstrate that=20 the highway authority had ruled the use of the sign was inappropriate=20 and that they knew of that decision at the time of the alleged offence. They can certainly decide what precautions are appropriate at a=20 particular road works, but, unless and until they do, it is the=20 responsibility of the engineer in charge and interfering with those,=20 even if they are later deemed to be inappropriate, will still be an offen= ce. .... From the CPS guidelines: 'Damage is not defined by the Act. The courts have construed the term=20 liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on=20 the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. What constitutes=20 damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its=20 common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6). The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or=20 performance of the property.' Colin Bignell" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 00:00:03 on Fri, 31 May 2013, Periander <email_address> remarked: <quote> How long after the roadworks are finished are you allowed to move such a sign? There was one on the pavement (that kind of three foot high tinplate tripod with a sandbag on the bottom to overcome the inherent design defect that they get blown around) near me for days after the workmen had finished digging and filling in whatever hole it was. And what about the yellow signs that say "Police incident in progress" (or whatever), I remember one of those being left for *months* on the grass verge near my previous house. Roland Perry" @key: "<quote> =20 That is an outrageous statement when you think about it. You are=20 saying that a cyclist should delay his or her journey by perhaps 10=20 minutes to avoid delaying car drivers by less than one minute (given a=20 half mile roadworks where people shouldn't be driving much faster than=20 40mph anyway)? There is the further practical point than on a fairly narrow rural road=20 it is unlikely that there is any provision for pedestrians as=20 excavations etc. may be adjacent to the cones anyway, and a walking=20 cyclist is somewhat more at risk, and much slower, than a cycling=20 one.[1] If this is really how the managers of roadworks think, then they need=20 re-educating. [1] In the event that there is a pedestrian route through the=20 roadworks, there won't normally be any pedestrians on a rural road=20 anyway, as it is largely suicidal, and it seems eminently sensible for=20 the cyclist to cautiously cycle along said pedestrian route rather than=20 dismount. =20 Percy Picacity" @august: "<quote> Almost certainly; failure to take proper care in the circumstances for personal safety. Probably in the order of 10-20% contribution. stayed with me just long enough to rescue me" @ab: "Ian Smith put finger to keyboard: <quote> s t Is the rectangular sign *on its own* enough though?=20 Won't all one-way roads have a no-entry or similar at the start of the=20 restriction? Speed limit signs are placed at the start of the restriction. (Repeaters=20 are smaller for this reason). No vehicles signs are placed at the start o= f=20 the restriction. Without these signs the restriction would not be valid.=20 But the rectangular one-way signs could all be removed and the road would= =20 still be one-way.=20" @ijackson: "<quote> Exactly. The signs do not appear to relate to the pavement (footway). And of course anyway putting up "cyclists dismount" signs on some subset of not-shared-use pavements is a bad idea as it creates (even more) confusion about exactly which pavements cyclists are allowed to cycle on. Cambridge is already plagued by badly-signed shared-use pavements, which sometimes start and stop with no real indication, and which seem to confuse a great many people. I've been shouted at for cycling on the road, and told to get on the pavement, when the pavement wasn't shared use (and would have been totally unsuitable - Mill Road in Cambridge outbound just before Gwydyr St); conversely I have been shouted at for cycling (considerately, I hasten to add) on shared use pavements. But regardless of whether that would be a good idea, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about signs that are clearly intended to apply to the carriageway. Ian Jackson personal email: <email_address> These opinions are my own. <url> PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657" @toomtabard1760: "<quote> There's a main route in central Edinburgh where tramworks are ongoing and the road is totally closed apart from one lane to allow buses to get out from the main bus station. The lane is fenced on both sides and one fence is between the bus lane and the pavement and, at both ends, they've put several rectangular 'cyclist dismount' signs on the pavement side of the fence. Now even with that and the fact that, as specifically mentioned in the Highway Code, it's a statutory offence to cycle on a pedestrian pavement anyway, there are still folk doing it. When challenged, the excuse, if any, is that 'there is no alternative'. The fact that it's only about 200 yards and the alternative is to get off the bike and push it, seems to come as a surprise when suggested to the offenders. (I have some reservations that 'cyclists dismount' signs should be used where it is a statutory offence to cycle in any circumstances. There should be RTA 'no cycling' signs if any further warning is actually warranted.) Toom" @a24061a: "<quote> The obvious solution is to encourage cyclists to ride through the road works like other vehicular traffic, & to stay off the pavement (mounted or not - either way, they are inconveniencing pedestrians unless it's a particularly wide pavement)." @a24061a: "<quote> For the most part, I do (I object to some of the anti-pedestrian & anti-cycling bits that can be used for victim-blaming, but those are not relevant here). I object to your polite version of the "I saw a couple of cyclists run red lights this morning, so you're all scofflaws" argument." @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 15:15:02 on Fri, 31 May 2013, Toom Tabard <email_address> remarked: <quote> Where I live the cyclists cheerfully and equally ignore both. Roland Perry" @a24061a: "<quote> Well, that varies according to the size of the cycle, the cyclist, & the pram; but the obvious answer is that someone cycling on the road does not inconvenience pedestrians on the michael21@example.com. Pedestrians deserve top priority. Yes; therefore the drivers should wait patiently. No, it isn't. What about someone driving a tractor? Should farmers have to wait until midnight before they attempt to go through the road works, in case some precious commuter gets delayed a few minutes? Reasonable consideration does not cover meeting Toad of Toad Hall's requirements." @ian: "<quote> That's irrelevant. The rectangular sign contains a mandatory instruction that you must comply with whether or not you can see (or can have seen) a circular sign. Probably, but since not all no entry signs necessarily imply a one-way road, and further since you can be on a one-way road without having seen the no entry end, that is also irrelevant. There is no escaping the fact that the one-way sign is a rectangular sign reporting a mandatory restriction. It is just as mandatory (and just as informatory) as a speed limit sign, or any of a large number of circular signs. Further, it's not alone - there are other rectangular signs that are mandatory - end of cycle route, for example. It simply isn't the case that all rectangular signs are merely advisory or providing non-mandatory information. regards, Ian SMith |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \|" @key: "<quote> n d to all I don't think that is always the right answer just because some health=20 and safety 'expert' has decided to cover himself in the simplest way=20 possible. It might be the right answer if the roadworks are 30m long=20 and cars are going at 50mph through them, and if, also, there is=20 actually anywhere to walk. If it is a 2 mile convoy system it would=20 seem an unwarranted imposition on the cyclist who could either keep up=20 with the convoy, or perhaps pull in between the cones when each quantum=20 of traffic (in each direction) passes. Just because someone puts a=20 notice up, especially an advisory one, that does not make it=20 conclusively correct. Intelligent give and take is often desirable. Most of us have seen the chaos when over-entitled drivers decide to=20 carry on into roadworks after the lights have changed, so the people=20 the other end, incensed by missing green, enter on red; then no-one=20 gets home in time for tea! Either cyclists or car drivers can cause=20 others unnecessary problems if they are too determined to demand their=20 'rights'. =20 Percy Picacity" @jpmg: "<quote> No. Cambridge has several streets that are two way (for all traffic), but which have 'no entry' signs at one end. [ There are three distinct kinds of these of which I'm aware ... ] -patrick." @me: "<quote> Are you suggesting that cyclists walking amongst pedestrians inconveniences the pedestrians? I am not sure why it should - could you explain? Judith. Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "<quote> Tell that to the cyclists who insist on "mingling" with them. Judith. Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:00:03 +0100, David McNeish <email_address> wr= ote: <quote> It would be rude to suggest that some I know may do just that :-) Judith. =20 Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you." @me: "<snip> <quote> I think you appear to be claiming that the local authority may have accepted it had made a mistake in a specific case some time in the past - therefore every time it places such signs it is also making the same mistake. That of course would be an incorrect conclusion. Judith There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury. The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one. Mr Justice Griffith Williams" @ulm: "<quote> That would be my argument but then I spend most of my life walking and not cycling or even driving ... and for the sake of completeness I do do all three. All the best, Periander" @ulm: "<quote> Well forgive the trite reply but you could have done your monthly good deed and given the council/police as appropriate a quick phone call? I'm not sure that a sign left out by accident/oversight helps move the discussion forward. All the best, Periander" @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Thu, 30 May 2013 22:15:02 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> I suppose having your shin carved open by a pedal is not in the least bit inconvenient to you then. And the road works will be for a relatively limited length - very likely FAR less than (for example) an area of traffic calming. Why should anyone expect traffic to race through roadworks with no respect for vulnerable road users? As the other road users have a legal duty to give reasonable care towards cyclists. In fact, there is an additional duty in that direction." @phil: "Nightjar <email_address> considered Fri, 31 May 2013 09:40:18 +0100 the perfect time to write: <quote> it e if or tion nger The decision has been made public and forms part of the policy of the Highway Authority in question. It existed long before the rogue signs were placed in contravention of it. =80=94 When it is placed in direct contravention of the Highway Authority's stated policy? r a lly So, until about 5 years ago then." @key: "<quote> rote: u but the t of ic nces the I suspect it is something to do with them wheeling a bicycle. =20 Percy Picacity" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 23:10:02 on Fri, 31 May 2013, <email_address> remarked: <quote> It's especially inconvenient if they are wheeling their cycle at the time. Roland Perry" @roland: "In message <email_address>, at 00:15:06 on Sat, 1 Jun 2013, Periander <email_address> remarked: <quote> As it was on a major road about a mile from County Hall and with dozens of police cars passing every day, and probably hundreds of council staff (both in the highways department and elsewhere), the expression "why have a dog, and bark yourself" comes to mind. Roland Perry" @ZBrann:
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 229, "forum_name": "uk.legal.moderated.20141121.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-uk.legal.parquet'}